September 21, 2012

The Romneys’ generous charitable donations in 2011 would have significantly reduced their tax obligation for the year. The Romneys thus limited their deduction of charitable contributions to conform to the Governor's statement in August, based upon the January estimate of income, that he paid at least 13% in income taxes in each of the last 10 years.

So Romney voluntarily forked over more money to the federal government than he needed to because he didn't want the percentage to look too bad.

ADDED: Sorry for the typo in the headline. It's 30%, not 40%. He's not that generous.

353 comments:

"I don't pay more than are legally due and frankly if I had paid more than are legally due, I don't think I'd be qualified to become president," Romney told ABC News in July. "I'd think people would want me to follow the law and pay only what the tax code requires."

"So Romney voluntarily forked over more money to the federal government than he needed to because he didn't want the percentage to look too bad."

The left will still hammer him for (1) having a low effective tax rate becasue he is a rich oligarch and (2) being either (a) stupid or (b) a poor provider for his children ("Think of the chillldrennn!!) by gving more of his family's money than is mandated by law to the government. He should have taken the charitable deduction on his tax return and used the tax savings to donate money directly to welfare mothers. This would have given him a much lower effective tax rate and led them to hammer him even harder for being a richy rich.

I don't like what he did, becasue giving a gift that you know will be wasted is foolish and giving a gift to a thief is idiotic.

•The Romneys’ generous charitable donations in 2011 would have significantly reduced their tax obligation for the year. The Romneys thus limited their deduction of charitable contributions to conform to the Governor's statement in August, based upon the January estimate of income, that he paid at least 13% in income taxes in each of the last 10 years.

AndyR, you need to stop relying on poor sources. They'll only embarrass you. Of course, you might actually run into a disconcerting fact or two if you wander off the reservation, so I can see why you'd prefer to simply repeat what you're fed.

Romney chose to limit his charitable deductions. Given the deductions he chose to claim, he paid the amount legally due. Not more. Not less.

From the bottom of the article, where inconvenient details naturally appear these days:

To be fair, Romney did pay what he "legally owed" last year; he just kept his legal requirement lower than what it could have been.

Romney's campaign responded to the discrepancy, saying the candidate wanted to be "consistent" with his August comment.

"Gov. Romney has been clear that no American need pay more than he or she owes under the law. At the same time, he was in the unique position of having made a commitment to the public that his tax rate would be above 13%. He directed his preparers to ensure that he is consistent with that statement," a campaign official said in a statement.

He paid what he owed. He kept his spoken commitment. He gave more than 30% of his income to charity. He routinely has given almost 14% to charity for the last 20 years at least. What a greedy bastard.

What is the amount Romney should pay in order to completely satisfy any asshat who thinks he has a point to make?Andy?Garage?machine?Be clear and specific because I'm pretty sure Romney wants to get it just right to satisfy everyone.

He made a statement that he'd always paid at least 13% -- which was true.

No one knows whether this is true. You're just assuming he's telling the truth (which with any politician is a bad assumption). Doesn't the fact that Romney had to pass on deductions to maintain a 13% tax rate make anyone else think that maybe -- maybe -- he paid much less than that in the years he won't release?

And none of you will address this: "and frankly if I had paid more than are legally due, I don't think I'd be qualified to become president." How do you square that statement with the fact that he has now paid more (probably a lot more) than is legally due?

Balfegor - the statement you cite is not a refutation of what I said. Althouse is implying he gave to charity to look good, or to avoid looking bad. That is incorrect and somewhat derogatory.

What he did was decline to take as much deduction as he could have legally used. He voluntarily paid more in tax to honor the statement made earlier about no lower rate than 13%.

The charitable giving had already taken place prior to the filing of the taxes. IOW, he gave the money because he wanted to. How he chose to have it treated after-the-fact, tax-wise is a separate matter.

Althouse is conflating the two, as are you.

In any case, Romney has consistently donated twice the % of his earnings to charity as has Obama, despite them both being millionaires.

It won't matter. The Dems will still flog the "rich" meme, because fear and loathing is all they have.

Being rich isn't a problem for Dems. Kerry is worth three times what Romney is. It's beoing rich and a Republican that is a problem, because Republicans are rich and greedy. What? Romney gave away 30%? Facts are irrelevant. Rs are greedy because...uh, because they ARE.

Also, Romney made the money himself. He didn't marry it like Kerry did, or inherit it from someone who made it, like Ter-aahza. So the Dems hate him for that.

"And none of you will address this: "and frankly if I had paid more than are legally due, I don't think I'd be qualified to become president." How do you square that statement with the fact that he has now paid more (probably a lot more) than is legally due?"

Justin, do you have a problem with that reading disorder you have ? It must make it hard to do your own taxes.

Let's not overdo it on this point. He gave a lot of money, for sure, but he already had plenty to give. It's a common tactic with charitable donations -- use wealth you've already built to reduce the tax burden on money you've just earned. One way to do that is through charitable donations. He probably has a tax lawyer, like most rich people, who tells him exactly how much in charitable donations to make each year to maximize the benefit of the deduction. Nothing wrong with that, but let's not act like all charitable giving is done because of altruism. If it were, we wouldn't need to encourage it through a deduction in the first place.

What we really need is tax reform, not any increase. This little story provides a good example. We should eliminate some of these deductions. The deduction for student interest income is a great example -- it phases out at a certain level of income. Maybe deductions for charitable giving (and ripped pants) should too.

Think about him sitting around all day, constantly waiting, watching, refreshing pages, checking RSS feeds... I guess being a professional occupier gives one a lot of free time...

I picture him sitting next to Jimmeh Carter the Fourth all day, skimming the web while being disgusted for Romney having the gall to do things like 'live' and 'breathe'. Didn't he say he lives in Atlanta? Jeebus Rictus on a popsicle stick; maybe Andy IS Jimmeh Carter the Fourth.

1. The Senate Majority Leader accused Romney of failing to pay Federal taxes based on an unnamed source and did so on the Senate Floor. That libelous charge needed to be rebutted.

2. The Obama campaign paints Romney as a rich guy who doesnt care about the common man. The fact that Romney has donated $50+ million to charity demonstrates the opposite. Comparing his donation record to either of the Dems on absolute or relative basis is instructive

Romney gives to charity. The Dems don't. They want to tax others to meet the same needs.

Justin, do you have a problem with that reading disorder you have ? It must make it hard to do your own taxes.

He limited his deductions and paid the legal amount of taxes.

First, try not to be such an asshole. Second, he paid more than legally due. The amount of taxes you legally owe takes into account any deduction you're legally entitled to take.

He passed on some deductions because he was afraid he would look bad if he paid some ridiculously low amount in taxes last year. And did it through passing on deductions for charitable giving so it would look like he was being altruistic. (I'm sure there are other deductions he took that he could have passed on.) It's so transparent. I realize he's already got your vote -- I think he probably has Ann's too -- but please try to think a little bit. This was a really stupid move. It's okay to admit it.

Romney voluntarily forked over more money to the federal government than he needed to because he didn't want the percentage to look too bad.

In other words, Romney could have given more money to charity, but gave it to the government instead, because he thought it would make him look better. But it actually just makes him look like an idiot.

"I don't pay more than are legally due and frankly if I had paid more than are legally due, I don't think I'd be qualified to become president"

So true. Romney's toast. He needs to strap his dog back on his car and go away.

You just questioned Pricewaterhouseecoopers' trustworthyness. That is commercial slander and actionable.

I don't know your commenting well enough to know whether you're being sarcastic or not. Sadly there are some commenters on this blog who would actually make a statement like that and mean it.

And I never questioned their trustworthiness anyway. They didn't do anything wrong -- neither did Romney. I'm sure they came to him and said, here's what you'll pay if you take all your deductions. And he said, I need to pay at least 13%, let's figure out a way to bring the effective rate back up. Again, there's nothing wrong with that -- but let's not pretend he passed on charitable deductions out of the goodness of his heart.

Do you think he ever did that before, so his rate would be at least 13%? I doubt it.

I think the Romneys are socially responsible and far more generous with their money than the typical rich person.

I would be in favor of eliminating the tax deduction for charity though. If people are truly generous, then let them give without expecting a lowered tax bill.

The other problem with charity is that people giving for things that suit their fancy does not form an "invisible market" that allocates money to the greatest good for the American public over lost tax revenue.65 million for a Panda exhibit in DC with 32 million in taxes written off..the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation spending 80% of their tax writeoff not in America, but Africa..Private charities are into getting as much money as possible for their cause or causes...but in that process...excess money goes to "favored diseases" vs. pedestrian ones like diabetes. Money from private charity can always be collected for surgery a cute white girl needs, but not a 36-year old native American.

Not that the government does not have it's own overbudgeting of certain "Causes", while neglecting others...but earlier philanthropy was for the most part given for general use things like libraries, hospitals...Nowdays, both private donors and private charity foundations spend on more specialized niche things like "saving sea turtles" "saving MD kids" or send the money out of America so no American benefits from money our government still allows full writeoffs on.

Mayor Rahm Emanuel met Thursday with Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak — who delivered a message that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is not attempting to interfere in the U.S. presidential election to benefit Mitt Romney.

When you have lost Netanyahu ...

You . . . you honestly think it would help Romney if there were a perception that Netanyahu were attempting to interfere in the election on his behalf? Look, Israel is popular in the US and all, but the American people -- at least the ones Romney needs to have turn out for him -- are intensely jealous of their sovereignty. Any foreign effort to interfere on behalf of a particular candidate would -- if it ever became public -- instantly backfire.

The way I see it, Romney gives a bunch of dough each year to charity. That's a call of his faith--he has to do it.

He's also a politician and wants to manage his taxes so that they look reasonable--knowing that little putzes like Harry Reid will be caterwauling about them, and Obama Fanboy Warren Buffet will be hyperventilating about paying at a lower tax rate than his secretary pays, and Obama Fanboy Joe Biden will be paying just $369 in charitable donations in a "big year" viz nothing at all most years.

So some sum of money is going to private charities. Actually a boatload of dough is going to private charity--$4 million or so in 2011.

And since the Obama gubmint is in the business of just giving (not to say pissing) money away, why not give them a little extra, so theyll have some money to donate to "charity". Like say the United Auto Workers or the Chicago Teacher's Union. Can't say that Mittens isn't a giving spirit.

Nothing wrong with that, but let's not act like all charitable giving is done because of altruism.

When you give money to charity, yes you get a tax deduction, but that deduction is far less than the amount you gave, so you still would have come out ahead if you had kept that money for yourself. Ask Biden.

"Did you ever wonder how Andy R. almost always manages to post the first comment?"

Althouse sockpuppet. She sits there thinking up the stupidest comment anyone could possibly make to her post, and posts it right at the top. Stupidity that consistent is no accident. It's quite impressive, and lucrative.

The left had their commentary on this story written months ago. They just had to wait until after the fact to hit 'submit.' No matter what his returns said, the left would have suffered vapors and feigned outrage.

But let's not rain on their parade. Their greatest pleasure in life is scrutinizing other people's finances.

When you give money to charity, yes you get a tax deduction, but that deduction is far less than the amount you gave, so you still would have come out ahead if you had kept that money for yourself. Ask Biden.

That's true, but it doesn't change the fact that the amount of charitable giving often has a lot to do with maximizing the benefit of the deduction. And there's nothing wrong with that -- that's the point of the deduction.

My point is that he chose to pass on some of his charitable deductions because he thought it would look good and take away from the narrative that's developing about him basically saying anyone who pays more taxes than they have to shouldn't be president and then turning around and doing that.

He also took large deductions for state and local income tax and job-related expenses. Why didn't he pass on those instead?

For those interested, here's the campaign's explanation: "Gov. Romney has been clear that no American need pay more than he or she owes under the law. At the same time, he was in the unique position of having made a commitment to the public that his tax rate would be above 13%. He directed his preparers to ensure that he is consistent with that statement."

Since Romney's "charity" always seems to come down to giving money to the Mormon "church" - an organization that, at this point, practically exists to advance his career - I see no reason in thinking of him as a charitable person.

I mean, when I give money to the homeless or whatever - which, I'm sure, hurts me more than it hurts him - I never know who the receiver is, except that he needs the money, while Romney's giving money to an organization that already has billions in assets.

It's fucking ridiculous to go along "believing" that such a mutual back-scratching charade is, somehow, what we think of as extending one's hand to the the unfortunate out of kindness.

All this tax BS is certainly more important than that Obama flat out lied about "Fast and Furious" during a Thursday interview.

He said: I think it’s important for us to understand that the Fast and Furious program was a field-initiated program begun under the previous administration .... When Eric Holder found out about it, he discontinued it.

Yessir. Bush did it, in October, 2009. Why am I no longer surprised by this dishonesty from Obama.

I think the Crack Emcee is right. We should discriminate about what Church charities we are allowed to donate to get a charitable deduction. Just because that charity has to be pre-approved by the IRS means nothing. Nothing at all.

1st, in addition to releasing his 2011 tax return, Romney released a statement from PWC stating that Romney the firm had examined his federal and state returns for the last 20 years. PWC reported that Romney had paid taxes in each of those years to both federal and state and that his average federal effective tax rate was more than 20% and never less than 13% during the period.

In addition, Romney asked a former IRS Commissioner to review his tax returns from the period. That gentleman concluded that Romney satisfied all his obligations as a taxpayer. That's how we know that Romney has paid taxes in prior years. Unless, of course, you're going to assert that PWC and the former IRS Commissioner are both liars.

2nd, you may have claimed a charitable deduction made in one year on another year's return. You may have even gotten away with it. However, the tax law does NOT permit Romney (or anyone else) to deduct on his 2012 return charitable contributions he made in 2011 but chose not to deduct on his 2011 return. The only way for Romney to deduct the forgone charitable deductions would be to file an amended 2011 return.

Let's say it's really the worst possible scenario - he did it just to look good.

So to look good he gives away an enormous amount of money, and, I assume, does a lot of good.

Compared to the other ticket's incredible stinginess which didn't improve even in percentage terms until very recently, despite being rich, and which is still nowhere near the same level, and well, one word: "Biden". Which is Austrian for cheap S.O.B.

A righteous Democrat who actually believed the crap they spew, would just say: "Thanks Mitt, that was nice of you. I still don't agree with your politics and don't want you to be President, but that's good work, and helps people, so I don't have to. I therefore won't question your motivation, because that would be uncivil.

Willard having already ((( lied ))) about his state of residence when he was was runnin' for MA gov notwithstanding, Dutch ~ Trust but verify!

Considering who's your choice for president, it was mighty courageous of you to bring up any residence issue. Word on the street is the Obama won't release his college transcripts because he claimed to be a foreign student. There is a pamphlet saying he was from Kenya.

Althouse sockpuppet. She sits there thinking up the stupidest comment anyone could possibly make to her post, and posts it right at the top. Stupidity that consistent is no accident. It's quite impressive, and lucrative.

That's not a bad hypothesis--and why I feel absolutely nothing for that character.

During the 2008 campaign, it was big-hearted Joe Biden gave an average of $369 per year to charity. He, like the overwhelming majority of Dems, is only generous with other people's money.

Watching the mental contortions the lefty trolls here have to go through to continue to maintain their "Romney = heartless rich bastard" is most amusing. Romney's been badgered for months to release his tax returns, because the left was sure - SURE - that they would show Romney had cheated. Now that it turns out he in fact overpaid, the nitwits turn around and say that disqualifies him from being president.

Just admit it: you are hopelessly entralled with your Messiah and nothing Romney did or didn't do (and nothing Obama did or didn't do) makes a dent in your slavish adoration. Reason and sense vanished in your rear-view mirror many, many miles ago.

Andy R. said... "I don't pay more than are legally due and frankly if I had paid more than are legally due, I don't think I'd be qualified to become president," Romney told ABC News in July. "I'd think people would want me to follow the law and pay only what the tax code requires."

In other words he does what everybody does that fill out the long form 1040.

The comments from the liberals on this site are proof positive that nothing, and I mean nothing Romney could do would satisfy them one bit. And his comments read to me as tongue in cheek regarding his qualifications to be president. But again, everything is literal to liberals.

And Crack, you just go on denigrating the faith that I live but you've only read about. And not just read, but read the most misleading and agenda driven material you could possibly find. If I'm a cult member, then that is news to me, and it would be to the rest of my non-Mormon family.

Palladian said... Did you ever wonder how Andy R. almost always manages to post the first comment?

Think about him sitting around all day, constantly waiting, watching, refreshing pages, checking RSS feeds... I guess being a professional occupier gives one a lot of free time...

Because he knows. Deep in his hard, little, shrunken, average IQ, heart that somebody, some where, is saying something derogatory about gays. It is his self imposed career to stop it.It is his life.His life is pathetic.

Fen reminds about Crack: And shameless, considering that not so long ago you were begging people here for money to help you out (which they gave). So you really shouldn't be talking about Charity. At all.

We all know that Barry likes the Jews about as much as Cedarford does!

That is why he can't find time to meet with Bibi in between golfing and trips to Vegas.

====================Don't like Obama much, but he is right not to give Israel the overconsideration above all other nations that too many Israeli leaders and all too many Zionists and Christian Zionists think is Israel's proper due.It may not be the "shitty little nation" that the French charge damages America by focusing America's attention away from bigger matters....but it is a small country with no resources and not in our vital interests. Indeed, most of the relationship goes to things that benefit Israel but which harm America elsewhere in the world.

Frankly, the line is that the President can ignore a demand from any leader to meet...but not "Bibi" or "Ariel" or "Golda" - with 1st names used to symbolize the Bestest Most Special Friendship Ever of Two Equal Nations bound in the same fates??? I think those days are over.

In the absence of Summitry over Nothing except showing Israel alone has the clout to snap it's fingers and Presidents obey, all "Bibi!!" concerns can be voiced to State and Staff at meetings.

You guys are a perfect example of the phrase, "you get the government you deserve."

Until you can get out of the partisan mindset, and learn how to assess information (who cares if it's from my blog? The question is whether the information's credible,..) you will allow everything to go to Hell because you egotistically spent your time chasing your own tails trying to prove how "swift" you are,...

So is that recalcitrant motherfucker Harry Reid going to apologize for his aberrant and hateful lies about Mitt Romney not filing taxes for 10 years? Fuck you Harry Reid for the scum sucking piece of rat shit you are and fuck you to anyone that supports him.

In 2003, after watching repeated dishonest and disgusting attacks on Bush - attacks which also were placing national security in jeopardy - I vowed to never vote for a Democrat again. In 2004, I voted for a Republican for President for the first time in my life and have, to this day, not voted for a Democrat since 2003.

Today's response by the Left to Romney's tax returns reinforced that decision. These disgusting assholes are attacking a man for voluntarily paying more taxes. Why was he in a position where he needed to pay more taxes? Because he donated TOO MUCH to charity in 2011.

That the Left finds fault in Romney for being TOO CHARITABLE is so utterly, fucking disgusting that I have not been this pissed off since that day in 2003.

Liberals who are attacking Romney for this: Fuck off.

YOU are the greedy ones. YOU are the ones who want to use the power of the government to FORCIBLY take money form people to spend as you say wish. THAT is greed. Wanting to keep money that you have honestly earned is NOT greed. The greedy are those who wish to confiscate money from other people.

"I don't pay more than are legally due and frankly if I had paid more than are legally due, I don't think I'd be qualified to become president," Romney told ABC News in July. "I'd think people would want me to follow the law and pay only what the tax code requires."

Still not good enough for you eh, shit-pusher? You are a pathetic human being. Truly pathetic.

The partisan mindset has been with us for centuries. It's refreshing to switch sides if you don't like the other's politics...unless of course you imagine yourself to be more important than you really are...then I could see trying to define one's self independently.

A lot of my charitable donations are not deductible. It's unfortunate, because often people around you need help, and all you have to do is hand it to them - no deduction. I know the reasons why the tax code needs verified charities, but still it's an impediment to giving where you know the need is - where people will see the other human who is there for them, and get much more out of the transaction than just the money. We miss the connection, the community, the love of helping each other and needing each other face to face. I still do it, but I wish that money didn't get taxed at 43%, then I'd have more of it to give.

I'm most disappointed in Romney's taxes by how much money the government still got from him - much of it thrown into a bottomless pit. Frankly, I'd rather that money went to any other cult than that one. Hell, give it to the Museum of Jurassic Technology at least.

Sorry, Jason, but I've answered that question, at least, a billion times.

How about we not change the subject and deal with the information I've provided, huh?

The Mormon "church" gets "charity" from Mitt - which they give back to him in full support of his political ambitions - though it has billions in assets and uses it's power to persecute those who don't fall in line.

Kind of reminds me of Jim Jones' People's Temple and the election of Harvey Milk.

Oh wait - that wasn't in the propaganda movie so you guys wouldn't know about it - much like how you know about how the Mormon "church" operates:

bagoh2 said: "Let's say it's really the worst possible scenario - he did it just to look good."

I fail to see why that's "the worst possible scenario." There is an element of self-interest in charity. You give and it makes you feel like a good person You give publicly and others see you as a good person -and that feels good too. That doesn't diminish the worth of the action in the slightest, not if you're actually giving up money and/or time.

Leftists are always doing things "just to look good." They have drum circles and sing-alongs in Madison. They occupy parks and camp out for months. They march for peace. They feel like St. Francis of Assisi when they bring their own bag into Whole Foods and donate the bag refund (a whole dime!) to the Save the Tazmanian Cockroach fund.

Their actions cost them next to nothing and accomplish nothing at all except for making them feel good and look good - at least in the eyes of their fellow lefties.

First the leftards cunts wanting him to release his tax returns because they thought he was hiding some nefarious evil doings inside of them. He tells them to wait because they aren't ready yet, they are up in arms about that, since many of them don't file federal tax returns. Then he releases them and what do they say? Oh, he paid a lower effective tax rate and he didn't take the charitable deduction because he's doing it for show.

How fucked up are you as human beings that you would stoop to this level of demagoguery that you would criticize a man for giving to much and not giving in the way you wanted him to. All this does in reinforce the reason NOT to release tax returns. Ever. Because leftards are the worlds biggest fucking morons. My effective tax rate was less than his and I made quite a bit of money in 2011, but nowhere near what he made just from his investment income.

Seriously, if Romney told Harry Reid to go fuck himself, die in a fire, and beat the shit out of him for 20 minutes or so, even God himself would give that a thumbs up and overlook it as a freebie.

Technically, by the way, if he doesn't declare it, he is not legally entitled to it. So, the statement Andy quoted is perfectly fine. Romney chose not to benefit from a certain amount of his charitable giving, which could be for any reason. I know one person who doesn't declare any of their charity, since doing so seems to be "counter productive" to calling it charity.

Michael, I said don't act like an asshole, in response to your personal attack. Tendentious isn't a big word, it's a high school SAT word, and you're misusing it. You still haven't offered a substantive response.

How does it feel to know you are descended from a people so gullible to the "teachings" of scammers like Joseph Smith, the area they originally inhabited was known as "the burned over district" by con men the world over?

I don't think Romney was speaking technically when he made the statement Andy quoted. Look at the campaign's official response, which basically says Romney meant what he said when he stated that no one should pay more than they have to, except for him, because he's in the "unique" situation of having promised to pay at least 13%. He could have achieved that by passing on other deductions. Like state and local income tax. Or job-related expenses. Why do you think he chose charitable deductions.

"Don't like Obama much, but he is right not to give Israel the overconsideration above all other nations that too many Israeli leaders and all too many Zionists and Christian Zionists think is Israel's proper due."

So when Israel and Iran exchange h-bombs and the strait of Hormuz glows in the dark, it won't affect us. Maybe if Obama would approve some pipelines and oil wells, I might not think you're stupid to think that.

Anti-Semetic is one thing. It's a free country. But oil does a few other things than cause Arabs to think we will jump for them.

Crack, you have two choices. Romney or Obama. If Enough people vote again Romney you'll get Obama. So you saying you haven't defended Obama is largely irrelevant. If you don't get Romney you'll get Obama. No third option.I notice that as the election looms closer whatever faults you've had with Obama are relegated to the back burner while you tell us over and over (and over) your bogeyman stories about Mormonism and Romney. Tell me, do you think most people not living in salt lake City give two shits about the inner workings of the Mormon church? How does that effect their lives compared to the fact that close to 9% (official number, though in actuality much higher) can't find jobs. We get it, you're in the bag for Obama. And if you're not, you might as well be.

Not exactly. Lots of big changes have come about in America 'cause folks started voting outside the partisan mindset.

Both Prohibition and its repeal were brought about because a sizable amount of people started voting outside the TwoPartySystem. It wasn't so much that a third party won the election, but the other major parties noticed that folks were drifting, and changed their platforms to bring 'em back into the fold. Same thing with Women's Suffrage.

Also keep in mind, if nobody ever voted Third Party in America then there wouldn't be a Republican Party today....

The Crack Emcee: Sorry, Jason, but I've answered that question, at least, a billion times.

Oh, you want to talk crazy? I've got a crazy story for you:

We have a 1.1 trillion dollar deficit. Obama means four more years of gridlock, four more years of kicking the can down the road.

This not-so-good economy we live in is imaginary, funded by credit which will have to be paid back when we are even worse off, with interest.

Where will the money come from? They aren't going to cut anything for old people. They're going to cut the US military, to pre-World War 2 levels. And without a global policeman the global economy our standard of living is based upon will evaporate. Which will make things even worse. Then they start cutting payments to old people.

Queue panics. Queue anarchists. And people end up fighting over dogs in the street.

"That the Left finds fault in Romney for being TOO CHARITABLE is so utterly, fucking disgusting that I have not been this pissed off since that day in 2003."

They think: 1) Romney did so to inflate the percentage of tax paid; 2) yet, conversely, in making those charitable contributions, gave money away that should have gone to the federal government, notwithstanding the fact none of their heroes (Obama, Biden, Kennedy, Buffett) would ever do the same under any circumstances whatsoever.

Regardless, don't sweat it too much.

No incumbent president consistently polling less than 50%, as this one has for 18 months now, has ever won reelection.

Apparently, Mr. Romney believes that 13% is his "fair share" and that's a number I can live with. Mel's tax proposal: All income over $20k per year per individual is taxed federally at 13%, state tax of 5%, local tax of 2%. No one gets any deductions and nothing else gets taxed ever...not property, not goods, not services. God gets 10% of my income; government gets 20% of my income over $20k; I get to keep the rest to use as I see fit. Seems fair to me...

Ah, I see, so - since we're going to take that position - let's please stop insisting this is an especially important and dangerous moment in American history and just immaturely keep on doing what's gotten us here.

"Where will the money come from? They aren't going to cut anything for old people. They're going to cut the US military, to pre-World War 2 levels. And without a global policeman the global economy our standard of living is based upon will evaporate. Which will make things even worse. Then they start cutting payments to old people.

Queue panics. Queue anarchists. And people end up fighting over dogs in the street."

"Ah, I see, so - since we're going to take that position - let's please stop insisting this is an especially important and dangerous moment in American history and just immaturely keep on doing what's gotten us here.

That'll save our asses, for sure,...

It's Obama or Romney.

There is no realistic third choice.

Those are just the facts.

No one here can change it - no one here (or elsewhere) can change it - no one anywhere will change it.

So, pick your poison.

Here's a hint: no incumbent president consistently polling below 50% ever won reelection.

World o' difference between saying "It is this" because it actually is that, and making it into that later 'cause you earlier said it was that way.

You're joking, right? What the hell exactly are you saying, that he's somehow a hypocrite for making charitable contributions he didn't have to make, and for not taking the full deductions, so as to pay more money than he had to pay?

This is all hilarious to me, how you're striving to justify your criticism of his taxes.

On a related note, why don't you ask Obama why he didn't pass the Buffett Rule three years ago, or give more discussion to the Bush tax cuts the last time they were set to expire?

And how about that Obama commercial that goes something like: "you work hard, stretch every penny, but chances are you pay a higher rate than Romney." It must all be Romney's fault, even though the government doesn't make him pay more.

Gee, why didn't Obama fix that?

Of course, the answer to that question is easy. He only wants it as political ammunition. He's saying to the middle class, "I'm on your side. You should believe me, even though I didn't do shit about it when I could have."

The reason why Romney's tax rate is so low is because his income comes from investments. Investments are taxed at a lower rate because they come from already-taxed monies. The obvious solution here would be to make the dividends a tax-deduction for corporations, and tax these dollars as standard income for the recipients of the dividends.This would raise Romney's tax rate, as well as Warren Buffett's, every Hollywood actor/actress, etc. It would ALSO help pension funds, by raising the dividends that are paid out to them, but most pension recipients will have lower tax rates than the aforementioned rich folk.

"It is part and parcel of the fact that 99.9% of all black Americans will be voting for the President.

No matter what."

It's only 90% of voting Black American voters that will be voting for Obama; the aggregate will probably be less in '12 than in '08, if only because the lie of "Hope and Change" have been completely exposed to the point of it being an undeniable fact.

Anyway, about 10% (or more) of voting Black Americans are truly free of the modern plantation.

I think Crack should stop wasting his time here, where his brilliant insights are unappreciated, and write the Mormon version of "The Da Vinci Code." He's as full of shit as Dan Brown, but at least Dan Brown made some serious coin off of his conspiracy fantasies.

Crack wrote:Can you name one (1) professional endeavor Mitt Romney has pursued that DIDN'T involve the Mormon "church," at least, in an advisory position?

I'm not sure that's true. But it's ultimately irrelevant. Is foot locker a company that succeeds or fails. Is it based on sound economic principles. That's the important question. I've shopped at foot locker before before knowing that Romney had anything to do with its success. And no one handed me a pamphlet about the wonders of Mormonism on the way out. If they're or proselytizing to me about Mormonism as a condition of me shopping there it's not really that big a deal. Especially in this day and age where people can buy shares of a company. What if mormons sat on the apple board. Would you not buy an iPhone? I don't know that there are or there aren't. But if there are, how is Mormonism making its way into the products being put out by apple? Could you even tell?

If you're going to support Gary Johnson you really can't be making cracks about cults and magic underwear.

Also, if you could please tag your comments with #GaryJohnsonsupporter, or something similar, I think it would make your statements much more tolerable, as people wouldn't feel the need to refute them.

Forget the assuming, Crack. How about your PRE-suming? As in you presuming that you know me, my family or my faith. You can have your own opinions of what Mormons are about, but you really don't know. I'm a convert to the LDS church, but my wife and three daughters are Catholic, baptized and schooled.

The only import to this story is it shows how the left LIED in the claim, made by the majority leader of the senate and passively adopted by the President, that Romney didn't pay taxes or somehow cheated on his taxes.

The only reason the left was interested in Romney's tax returns in the first place was to exploit class warfare and bray endlessly about how Romney pays a lower rate than people since his income is from investments.

The fact that he paid more, and therefore stomped on their burn- the-rich fire, AND showed them up as hypocrites, is fiendishly clever, well planned (made them wait for it), and an indicator of good character. The sort of person I want to vote for. Because this media bullshit will continue for years if he is elected.

Now the story is how he cheated the media of a class warfare opportunity. Not so compelling, being outclassed. Suck it, libs.

Johnson lost the primary, Crack. But I see you're into three ways, which would mostly hurt Romney.

Hmmmm

I seriously have no dog in this fight - they both make me want to vomit. If, on Election Day, I wake up to four more years of Obama, I'll think of how stupid Ann was to vote for him and how equally stupid the Republicans were to stay home.

If I wake up to a Romney presidency, I'll know we have a whole new set of problems to deal with - many of which you guys are completely clueless about and are prone to defend.

Obvioiusly the long walk back is now beginning. Netanyahu bet big on Romney winning, now not so much.

Keep telling yourself that.

Maybe you'll even believe it.

Of course, Netanyahu gives the pro forma answer that he isn't trying to influence the election when it's obvious he is.

The Unreasonable Troll is a shilol sockpuppet, Just keep blathering on.

God, these people are dull.

shiloh said...

Willard having already ((( lied ))) about his state of residence when he was was runnin' for MA gov notwithstanding, Dutch ~ Trust but verify!

Ah, yes, the world is afire on this issue.

Desperation.

Cons nightmare continues ...

nightmare?

Lessee now,

"You can't transform DC from the inside"

Admission of failure?

"Ramos followed up in English: 'But if you have nothing to hide, then why are you not releasing papers to the –'

Obama responded: 'The truth is we’ve released thousands of papers.

'But not all of them,' Ramos countered."

Caught in the Fast and Furious lies.

"But it was a promise, Mr. President," Univision reporter Jorge Ramos said. "This is very important, I don’t want it to get lost in translation. You promised that, and a promise is a promise and with all due respect, you didn’t keep that promise."

Obama’s only response was that he does not have the power as president to accomplish everything he wants to, saying it requires cooperation within the other branches of government.

"I am happy to take responsibility for the fact that we didn’t get it done but I did not make a promise that I would get everything done, 100 percent when I was elected as president."

Being roasted for not passing comprehensive immigration reform when he owned both Houses of Congress.

"Barack Obama knew about the Benghazi Consulate terror attacks 90 minutes after they began on 9-11."

And then he went to bed.

"You would hate to think the president would purposely mislead the American people but it sure looks like it to me."